[Tim Wilson]

I’m eventually going to have to go back up the thread to reply to many of the GREAT points up there, but for now, I have a couple of observations.

First, I think Simon is absolutely correct. The ease of nonlinear editing enables laziness of a sort that was previously impossible. I also agree that lazy editing enables lazy filmmaking. “Fix it in post” is no longer seen by producers as the solution to a problem. You’ve all seen it yourselves. For post wizards like you, again and again, the attitude of “Fix it in post” is the PROBLEM.

Fortunately most of you are more than up to the task. But I think among our arguments about the monkey work of pushing buttons, it’s worth talking about the toll our wonderful, amazing tools have taken on the classic cinematic arts, regardless of the time in which they’re being practiced.

To me, the watchword of cinematic anything — features, TV, videos, trailers, spots — is “INTENT.” Storyboarding isn’t where preparation for the implementation of cinematic intent begins. It’s where it ENDS. The vision expressed in cinematic intent starts long before that.

The details of the first creative spark are beyond the scope of a post even as ridiculously long as this one, but again, I think Simon is right. A discussion about cinematic editing presupposes some things about “cinematic cinematography” if you will, which extend backwards through lighting to staging. That’s where I think the visual aspect of cinematic intent begins.

To make my first invocation of film theory, the basic building block of cinematic intent isn’t “the shot.” It’s the FRAME. That’s what was so powerful about filmmakers like Fritz Lang, and cinematographers like Gregg Toland. Every single frame of their films could have been used as a publicity photo, because every frame was composed as a FRAME.

Which is to say, we can skip over the whole depth of field argument. We can skip grain, spherical lenses, the flicker of the shutter in the projector. Go straight to INTENT. An example of what happens when everything is composed INTENTIONALLY is that the actor has to hit every mark, or there’s nothing to fix in post. There’s no frame.

Look at something like Birdman. It looks loosey goosey, and there appears to be a lot of improvised camera movement. But I think that the movement had much narrower parameters than there appeared to be. You can only create an illusion if you control every element. Otherwise, you can see the cards up the sleeve, the knotted hankies in the pocket, the rabbit in the hat.

We know that the ILLUSION of Birdman was REALIZED in post, but it wasn’t FIXED in post. Things had to happen on the set and on the street in a predictable fashion.

At least that’s my guess. LOL Fortunately, I’m right about the rest. LOL Think about what’s required for a tracking shot like the one in Children of Men — far more moving pieces than in the also-marvelous tracking shots in Goodfellas and The Player, although for any of them, it’s almost impossible to conceive how many things needed to happen at exactly the right time, in exactly the right way.

To that end, I don’t know how deeply the laziness in shooting and editing is rooted in multicam per se but, again, I think Simon is absolutely correct that aspects of modern tools enable new kinds of laziness.

That is, there’s a fine line between “flexible” and “wobbly.”

[Winston A. Cely] ” Who are the new auteurs? We have a few old ones left, Scorsese, Spielberg, Allen, Coppola, and even those guys aren’t necessarily producing at the level we may imagine their older works are at. But Who’s the next Kubrick? Kuroaswa? Bergman? Fellini? “

I don’t know about all these guys. I wasn’t a fan of Kubrick, Fellini gave me a headache, I have LESS than no use for Woody, etc. Not that I’d want to persuade anyone else about any of that, or argue that any of them weren’t auteurs (of course they are) but my point in mentioning some of the auteurs today is that I don’t think that any of the masters you mention would acknowledge a conflict between “movies” and “films.”

Okay, maybe Bergman would. LOL

Here’s my short list of guys working today who deserve to be considered somewhere in that general group.

Wes Anderson. Has there ever been a filmmaker for whom you can more definitively look at a single frame and say, “It HAS to be his. It can’t be anyone else.” I personally don’t think so. And of course, hyper-literate scripts, fantastic art design, and stylized editing to match.

Alejandro Iñárritu. It happens that a lot of his best work is in Spanish, but still.

Not to put the Mexican guys in a clump, but Alfonso Cuarón is amazing. I haaaaaaaated Gravity, omg, I hated it so much, but Children of Men features not only one of the best handfuls of tracking shots in movie history, but it’s a work of art from stem to stern. Don’t you DARE leave off Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban from his list of marvels, another bravura piece of filmmaking from a modern master.

I swear I’m not meaning to do this on purpose, but gol dang, I’m insane for Spain’s Pedro Almodóvar, who I think of as today’s Fellini, minus the headache. LOL Fully embraces absurdity, art, and populism.

Christopher Nolan. I don’t care for his Batman pictures AT ALL, but Memento, The Prestige, Inception, Interstellar? Wow. Not all of them are 100% winners, but wow.

Steven Soderbergh. He uses assumed names for shooting and editing, but he does in fact shoot and edit. Even if his career stopped with Sex Lies & Videotape, Kafka, Out of Sight (I really love this), The Limey, Traffic, Erin Brokovich, and Oceans 11, that’s straight-up legit.

Richard Linklater. He’s another who could have ended with Slacker, Dazed and Confused, and Before Sunrise, and he’d make my cut. A very distinctive voice. Add a couple of others from his filmography like Waking Life, School of Rock, Bernie (what? You didn’t see this? DO!) and Boyhood, and you’re in pretty rarified air.

Neill Blomkamp. It’s too easy to dismiss genre guys, but District 9, Elysium and the not-great but undeniably HIS Chappie reveal the firm hand of a man with a vision. Very unusual for a guy to put this strong a stamp on his work this early in his career…unless it’s Anderson, Linklater, Soderbergh, Tarantino….never mind. LOL BUT STILL.

An older guy of course, but I don’t think James Cameron gets enough credit. Terminator, The Abyss, Aliens, Titanic, that blue cartoony kind of thing — what was the name of that again? In any case, as strong an imprint as any director has made, ever, and he wrote them as well as directed them. A deep visual palette for sure, and superlatively edited.

It astounds me that Spike Lee isn’t mentioned more often on a list of modern auteurs. It’s also amazing to me that the guy can do Oscar-nominated work, and still has to go to Kickstarter to raise money for his pictures.

Here’s 8 movies in 8 years:

• She’s Gotta Have It
• School Daze
• Do the Right Thing (if I was teaching a film criticism class, I think this would my third movie on the syllabus)
• Mo’ Better Blues
• Jungle Fever
• Malcolm X
• Crooklyn
• Clockers

I don’t think any other director on this list made 8 movies in a row this good.

Then later of course He Got Game, Summer of Sam, Get On the Bus, 4 Little Girls, When The Levee Broke, and the sorely underrated (imo) Inside Man.

I included a couple of documentaries for Spike, because I think his authorial stamp on them is clear. But let’s add

Errol Morris. He won an Oscar for The Fog of War of course, which falls in line with a couple of others of his in particular, notably The Thin Blue Line, Standard Operating Procedure, and The Unknown Known — but within his work, you can also group Vernon Florida, Gates of Heaven, Fast Cheap & Out of Control, Tabloid, and, honestly, A Brief History of Time.

Those are staggering feats of editing. They’re also staggering feats of connection to his subjects, without parallel in the history of film, I think.

And of course, if we’re talking about an auteur documentarian, we might as well count the dude who’s got an editing technique named after himself, Ken Burns. He really did rewrite the rules of Looooooong forum documentary, including the use of voiceover for primary sources, and I think at least as much, music. Watch what he does in 9 hours of his baseball documentary series with ONE SONG. (“Take Me Out To The Ballgame.”)

But he really is kind of sui generis, yes? How long does it take to peg a work as undeniably Ken Burns? Surely not 90 seconds? Maybe 60 seconds? 30?

Does Quentin Tarantino qualify as an auteur? Me, I think so, but it’s getting hard to remember. Make some more movies, son!

And of course, Tyler Perry‘s auteur-dom extends from film into television. His shows on Oprah’s network get higher ratings than Oprah does.

(You know what? I really like the guy as an actor too. I’m sorry his Alex Cross picture tanked, but it’s a genuine mystery to me how nobody has taken someone with this amount of charisma, intelligence, and yes, I’ll say it, good looks, and found something better to do with him than put him in a dress. God bless him for blasting his way into opportunities though. More power to him.)

Before I go further into television, though, lemme make a quick observation. Nolan is 44, Perry and Anderson are 45. Blomkamp is 35. Besides Cameron, Burns, Almodóvar and Morris in their 60s, the rest are in their 50s. Yes, Quentin Tarantino is in his 50s. Spike turned 58 last week.

What I don’t see today is the guys who are as bold in their 20s as THESE guys were in THEIR 20s….but, apart from that, I honestly do think that the health of auteur-dom is as sound today as ever.

TELEVISION
I agree with what other folks have said, that a lot of the most intent-laden, cinematic work is being done on television, where you can again point to some real auteurs… although, interestingly to me, they are typically more often writer-producers than directors.

This is not unlike traditional Nashville, where writer-producers have historically held much more sway than singer-songwriters. Willie Nelson had to leave Nashville to become a singer-songwriter-PERFORMER.

But the whole French critical movement to define “auteur” was to ask, who is the “author” of the film? The French are the ones who turned their focus to the director, but when it comes to TV, can we concede that among the “authors” of a TV series is…the AUTHOR?

Let’s start with Vince Gilligan, who’s also supremely interested in LOOKS, both as a writer and director, but before Breaking Bad and calling Saul, I think you have to start with the 49 episodes he wrote on The X-Files, plus the two he directed….plus the six episodes he wrote of The Lone Gunmen. You KNOW which episodes are his when you see them. One of you has surely built a playlist with them at Neflix or IMDb.

(If not, then get to work, you lazy bastards.)

David Simon: Homicide Life on the Street, The Corner, The Wire, Treme. Wow.

Bryan Fuller. I don’t think he gets nearly the credit he deserves, because his work is so quirky. Wonderfalls, Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies, Hannibal – complete auteur-ishness.

Shonda Rimes. Full stop.

Joss Whedon, whose TV auteur-dom of course extends forward into films. (He’s actually a 3rd-generation TV writer. His grandfather wrote for Donna Reed; his father for Electric Company and Golden Girls.)

I pity anyone who dismissed Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel as genre shows for teens. Fortunately, this is easily remedied through a number of streaming resources. Firefly, leading to Serenity, ’nuff said.

It was especially interesting to see him put his stamp on Much Ado About Nothing. It was 100% unaltered Shakespeare, while undeniably being a Joss Whedon picture. And he was the best part of The Avengers, imo.

Add JJ Abrams to my list of guys I don’t think get enough credit. It’s hard to imagine three shows more different, yet more genetically related, than Felicity, Alias, and Lost (he only did the first season, but still). He certainly put his auteur-y stamp on Fringe as well.

I also really enjoyed Cloverfield and the first Star Trek reboot…and talk about an auteur’s stamp! He probably single-handedly forced ARRI to develop spherical lenses for Alexa.

And no kidding, if there was a better movie in 1994 than the first 2 hours of Lost, I sure don’t remember what it was.

To bring this back around to the actual topic of EDITING WITH INTENT, I submit to you all the ne plus ultra of auteurs working today: DAVID FINCHER, Y’ALL.

(Also in his 50s, btw.)

(Like me, btw.)

(Yes, I’m exactly like David Fincher.)

Several things strike me about him, particularly with respect to editing.

First, he was the first director I’m aware of who has heavily relied on reframing in post as an additional vector for directorial intent. He’s done this from the days of shooting Girl With The Dragon Tatoo in 4K, and then Gone Girl in 6K. (I think that was his first 6K, but my point is the same.)

Not that he tells his DPs to shoot any old thing. But that as his story emerges, he can use reframing, or even movement within the frame, as part of EDITING WITH INTENT, to enhance storytelling that’s still evolving organically in post.

I don’t need to mention his movies by name, do I? My personal favorite is Fight Club, by a country mile, but really, take your pick. Don’t forget Alien3 or House of Cards.

What strikes me even more is the extent to which he places every kind of editing at his disposal, for every kind of work.

What’s the most frequently annoying, haphazard, seizure-inducing, pile of poo medium ever created? The one that’s most responsible for the rotting of the hearts and minds of America’s youth, indeed, destroying the moral fabric of American society?

Music videos.

Oh yeah, and responsible for killing rock and roll.

But music videos.

Fincher did “only” 60 of them, and they were all really good. Half of them are outstanding. A handful of them are not only among the best videos ever, but the most visually compelling short films of all time.

There’s Aerosmith, Janie’s Got A Gun, featuring a stunning turn by Leslie Anne Warren, realizing the truth about her daughter’s nightmare. CLASSIC Fincher, and one of his earliest runs at getting a strong performance from an ACTRESS, who’s there strictly to act, and not at all part of the musical proceedings.

This is a stunner. I definitely dropped what I was doing whenever it came on.

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

Don Henley, “The End of The Innocence.” Not a “story” video, but beautiful imagery. What blows me away about this one is the absolutely gorgeous camera movement working together with the editing. Classic, classic Fincher, and a stellar example of CINEMATIC INTENT.

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Vimeo framework” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

Bourgeois Tagg, “I Don’t Mind At All.” I absolutely adore this. Not one of his most famous videos, but one of the most beautiful. Gleaming classical musical elements via Todd Rundgren (for the record: Todd iz Godd), very clever use of mirrors and panes of glass in motion by Fincher, lit like a dream.

Absolutely gorgeous grown-up pop music, too. Wonderful, wonderful stuff, in every way. As much as you’ll be glad you watched this, you’ll be glad you heard it.

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

Say, remember when Paula Abdul was one of the biggest pop stars in the world? Not that she didn’t have the goods for a while there, but four videos by Fincher played a HUGE role. “It’s Just The Way That You Love Me,” “Straight Up,” “Cold Hearted Snake,” and this one, “Forever Your Girl.” I like it a lot, but it’s also highly unlikely (what? CHILDREN? SMILING?), and it’s really witty. Still looks like Fincher.

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

To me, Fincher’s true muse was Madonna, for whom he made what I think are three of the greatest music videos ever. I’d put all three in my top 5, for sure.

Madonna, “Oh Father.” Almost never gets talked about as one of her songwriting pinnacles, and perhaps her most emotional performance — a powerful story built around the death of her mother when Madonna was 5. The story is how Madonna’s father shattered with his wife’s passing at age 30 — Madonna’s age when she did this video — and the price his daughter paid for his pain. She’s not ready to empathize with him yet, but can finally imagine a day when she might. Strong stuff, to say the least.

Some of the most powerful images — notably, her mother in state with her lips sewn shut — come directly from Madonna’s memories, but a stunning (very) short from Fincher at his very, very, VERY best.

Opening reference to Citizen Kane, too, except instead of his mother signing young Kane away as we watch him playing in the snow through the lower pane of a window, we see young Madonna playing in the snow, through the lower pane of a window, as the sheet is pulled over her mother’s face.

No kidding, this is Maximum Fincher, and an absolutely devastating song.

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

Some days that you’d ask me, that’s my favorite video of all time, by any artist. Other days, it’s this one, Madonna, “Express Yourself.” Some VERY playful references to Fritz Lang’s Metropolis.

Wait, there’s a black cat and a girl pouring the cat’s bowl of milk onto a shirtless dude’s face in Metropolis, right?

In any case, THIS was the video that turned me into a David Fincher fan back in 1990. After this, I worked my way back through his filmography, so to speak, which I have to tell you, in the days before the internet, was really, really hard.

After this, watching every single thing David Fincher did became a compulsion. FANTASTIC work.

“Come on girls, do you believe in love?”

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

There are a million lists of David Fincher’s best videos floating around the interwebs, because this is always a conversation worth having. I can’t overemphasize the extent to which these videos made me fall in love with David Fincher for life.

I fell in love with everything about him, including his adorable goatee.

I have to say two things about this final video, which is the one that most often tops the aforementioned lists of David Fincher videos.

First, you only THINK you remember how stunning this is. I’m not kidding, it’s the cinematic equal of anything Fincher has done since, and an absolute gamechanger for popular music.

The second thing I have to say: “Strike a pose.”

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

I have so, so much else to say on the topics of auteurs and CINEMATIC INTENT, including its expression through editing, but this is probably enough for the next year. It might take you until next year to finish reading it.

Even if you have no interest in watching the videos, at least watch the first 10 or 15 seconds of each. I think you’ll be hooked, but I think you’ll also be impressed with the power of editing, cinematography, direction, and, above all, CINEMATIC INTENT in an under-discussed corner of David Fincher’s world.

PS. I adore the word PHILIPPIC. The best thing about this thread besides David Fincher’s goatee.

[Tim Wilson]

[Andy Field] “And I’m certain they’re not looking for a fresh out of film school grad but someone with years of experience already”

The job says 2+ years. I guess technically that’s “years of experience,” but especially from a school like Full Sail, SCAD (in Atlanta, an easy drive to DC), or the Art Institutes, you could actually graduate as early as age 20 and EASILY have no less than a year of real-world experience. Two isn’t out of the question. Certainly not by age 21-ish.

In any case, “2+ years” is a very young person.

[Andy Field] “It’s just outside if DC where the average government worker supporting a family makes between 60 and 150k a year.”

I’m not picking on you when I say this, Andy. There are obviously a LOT of people saying this. You just happen to be at the end of the thread as I’m typing.

Did y’all miss the ACTUAL median income I cited in my previous post? In the ACTUAL world of what people are ACTUALLY paid in Fairfax, this is an ACTUAL decent salary for someone in their early 20s.

Wait, what’s this? The AVERAGE PER CAPITA INCOME in Fairfax County is…wait for it, wait for it…$38,888. Well well well, LESS than $40,000.

In fairness, I don’t think per capita is the right number to look at. Median income is the right one…and in fact, this one is right in line what it should be for someone with so little experience. This was not a number pulled out of thin air.

And the ad implies that the number could be higher for someone with actual skills. Which FCPX obviously does not require, as we established years ago, so never mind. LOL

Kidding of course, but I so so so so think that the salary is not the story. Although, in classic The Debate fashion, why NOT debate whether a salary this close to the area median (and exactly AT the median for a woman) for someone with so little experience is fair or not. I think it is, you think it’s not, fine.

But the numbers are the numbers. They actually exist, and if an idiot like me can find them in seconds, I ask you, on behalf of idiots everywhere, to please at least START with the actual numbers being earned in Fairfax County, and whether or not it’s reasonable for someone with as little as 2-ish years to be so close to, or exactly AT the median, at such a young age.

[Tim Wilson]

[Brett Sherman] “Northern Virginia means Washington, DC. I can assure you it’s not any cheaper than Los Angeles.”

I think that’s important to note both for people living in LA and people NOT living in LA. There are loads of places that are at least expensive as LA, and have traffic every bit as bad, if not worse. Places are just places.

Specifically, Fairfax County is the second-richest in the US. That said, the median income is $60,000 for men, $40,000 for women.

(Ahem. The 77% number we talk about for women’s salaries compared to men’s is for white women. The more minorities you include in the number, the further down it goes — hence in Fairfax, on average, women are only making 66% what men are.)

My point being that $40,000 is clearly an entirely respectable number, even in Fairfax County.

Two things jumped out at me.

“2+ years editing experience.” Assuming you graduate from college at 21 or 22, this job is clearly aimed at someone in their early 20s — which again emphasizes the reasonable-ness of the number, ESPECIALLY for a job with benefits.

Of course, since most FCPX editors are illiterate skateboarders, the job is actually aimed at 15 year olds. Score!

Kidding aside, this a genuinely solid job offer for someone with the called-for qualifications.

Which is the other thing that jumped out at me: what’s NOT in the job description.

We can all recall job descriptions mentioned in this forum that piled an INSANE amount of stuff in there that no one human could possibly have, for an offensively low salary.

I’ve already established that $40K is a nifty number even in Fairfax, but no kidding, look at the qualifications: editing, basic color correction, enough Motion to be able to do lower thirds, chewing with your mouth closed, being able to work in an office, and not being an idiot.

Surely at least half of FCPX users can pull this off.

Although the chewing with your mouth closed suggests applicants of at least 16 years old, which does in fact rule out about half of FCPX users, what with being illiterate skateboarders and all. Sorry about that, fellas.

Kidding aside again, one implication of this is the same as what other people have mentioned for other NLEs. “I use what the boss/client says, and I don’t complain.” I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say, “We’re not interested in applicants who are going to try to make us feel bad about choices, and we DO want somebody who’s using the latest version of the tool of choice. The rest of you can go back to your dinosaur caves.”

I do think that this is an interesting headline, though, and I’m sorry to sniff the possibility of the discussion being derailed by the salary. IT’S A GOOD SALARY for someone with 2-ish years of experience, even in Fairfax. They’ve probably already filled the job.

What with there being such a deep pool of illiterate skateboarders to draw from.

[Tim Wilson]

Have you tried Google calendar? One of my favorite things about it is that you can easily and elegantly decides who can see what. Your open days are visible to everyone, and none of the blocked slots show WHAT’s blocked…unless you care to share that too.

I tried to fight it for years LOL but in practice, I haven’t found anything better.

[Tim Wilson]

[Charlie Austin] “I’ve had an “adjustment layer” crop (.png with an alpha cutout) in FCP Old for years. They still won’t use it. It’s not what they’re used to.

Inertia. Fear. :-)”

Which is my problem with this use of the word “inertia.” The speaker’s value judgement that the reason people keep doing things the same way is because they’re afraid to consider alternatives.

To flip this the other way: words like “consistent” and “persistent” = fear? Which equals something like “doesn’t get it,” “dinosaur,” “Luddite,” or however else you want describe it…

…and which may not be true at all. “I want to keep doing things my way” could just as easily mean “You haven’t persuaded me that your way is better,” or “not enough better for me to bother with.”

So maybe YOU’RE the problem for not explaining it well enough. LOL

Not referring to you personally, Charlie. You’re a fantastic explainer. I want more articles out of you dammit. LOL

(Everybody needs to read Charlie’s fantastic Creative COW article, “Don’t Fear The Magnetic Timeline.”)

But it keeps coming back to the same place. Again overstating rhetorically, it comes down to “People don’t take up X because they’re afraid to change.” Or maybe more simply, “They’re afraid of X.”

People with this perspective aren’t allowing that there are other perspectives as valid as their own. Maybe it’s a business reason (“I don’t need to buy new software or new computers it’s optimized for”), but yeah, maybe it’s a personal inclination, which is still straight up legit.

Do people value roots in the community where their family has lived for generations out of fear? Is fear the reason for driving the same car for 10 years? Does someone become a regular at the Starbucks near their house because they’re afraid to get coffee anywhere else?

No, no, and no.

Although hey, maybe yes to all three. I’ve got mental health issues. I’m afraid of almost everything that doesn’t involve typing on the internet. LOL

But I think anyone who says “inertia = fear” is telling me more about themselves than they are about the other guy or FCPX.

AND THAT’S FINE. I’m certainly not questioning the validity of the inclination to change, or to push limits, or to bleed on the edge. So why question the validity of practiced refinement, or valued expertise, or simply not buying that the other way is better?

My only point is that at some point, we have to acknowledge that the reasons why people choose or don’t choose FCPX are at least partly rooted in personal dynamics, and calling out the integrity of the other guy’s choice is, at the very least, unfair.

I’d say something about walking a mile in the guy’s shoes, but the only thing I’m more afraid of than walking a mile myself is YOU walking a mile in MY shoes. Stay away from my damn shoes you ppl. LOL

Look, I think it’s interesting to talk about the software. I post in this forum more than the others because I enjoy talking about it and its uses. Irrespective of specific tools, I love talking about people’s projects most of all.

I’m less interested in plumbing the depths of the other guy’s personal motivation unless personal motivation is the actual topic, and my own personality quirks are on the table. Because casually ascribing the OTHER guy’s motivations as SURELY lesser than mine begs the question of MY motivations, and how they might be negatively described by someone else — which of course assumes that I’ve looked at the PERSONAL motivations behind my BUSINESS choices.

We’ve all got ’em. So why are we only talking about the other guy’s motivation, and why is it usually negative?

[Tim Wilson]

[Charlie Austin] “[Jeff Markgraf] ” a combination of fear and inertia. I know these people. I work with them. It’s not really about X’s professionalism or suitability. Seriously, let it go.”

Great rant. 🙂 “

My only issues with the rant are that it’s really not very angry, and not all that long. Saddle up, son. LOL The longer and angrier the better. LOL

I do have a small issue with the use of “inertia” as a negative value. It’s simply a fact of nature, as described in Newton’s LAWS of Motion. It’s not a good thing. It’s not a bad thing. It’s just a thing.

I love this take on Newton from NASA’s website:

Newton’s first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.

This quite easily applies to human nature as well, but as both a word and a concept, I think is generally used in exactly the wrong way. The key words are “unless compelled to change.” What’s the actual COMPULSION to change to FCPX? What’s the external force that DEMANDS change?

Maybe it’s the need to retool the working environment — e.g., time for wholesale upgrade of all the facility’s machines — or some need to change software, or business model….but for most people, most of the time, there is no compelling reason to change ANYTHING

To more accurately apply any observations derived from Newton, we also have to address INTERNAL compulsion to change. Some people are inclined to it, some people aren’t. Neither state is good or bad.

For example, I’ve moved 25 times in 30 years. I think I’m slowing down, but I’ve said that before, so who knows. I’m pleased to say that I’m 30 for 30. I’ve loved every place I’ve lived and wouldn’t want to have missed a single one.

Four or five moves ago, I lived across the street from a woman who was born in that house, the same house her father was born in — and still lived in with her. She was in her 50s, him in his 80s, and they both loved the arrangement, as did her husband, and the woman’s kids, who loved growing up in the house with granddad. The kids moved away (it’s a pretty small house), but if my friend the mom had had her way, her grandkids would be born in that house too. Nothing was more important to them than their roots and their family, which to them, was pretty much the same thing. They were obviously happy.

So which is good and which is bad? The desire for a rooted family, or the desire to reach past the next horizon, willing to leave other parts of the family behind? Human society would collapse without both. But both are unquestionably manifestations of INTERNAL compulsions.

Even if the house burns down, do you rebuild it, build another nearby, or take it as an opportunity to move across the country? The only important answers are INTERNAL.

This has been my issue with the whole concept of Luddites, Dinosaurs, “stuck in the old ways,” or, worst of all “just doesn’t get it.” It fails to take into account the absence of EXTERNAL FORCES compelling change, or the absence of INTERNAL FORCES compelling change, not always, but sometimes purely for its own sake.

That is, we do a disservice to both “The Cold Mountain Moment” and “The Focus Moment” if we don’t acknowledge that they were driven more by INTERNAL compulsion than anything else. “We’re doing this because we WANT to do this.” Good for them.

But if I neither NEED nor WANT to change, my reasons are 100% valid. Why? Because they’re MY reasons, and my way is working well enough for me, even if YOU think I could or should do better. Stop making it all about you. LOL

Even for people compelled to change, X may not be the right choice. With apologies for dragging him into a rant of my own that he would never make, let’s call it The Raudonis Protocol. Mark needed to retool — the EXTERNAL compulsion. X wasn’t the right choice, so he chose something else.

As Jeff puts it:

[Jeff Markgraf] “Let’s be clear about something. Mark Raudonis and some others jumped to Avid for very good, very specific workflow reasons that couldn’t be addressed by X. Smart moves by smart people. “

This is the sentiment I wish was more in evidence around here. An acknowledgement that there are good reasons to choose something other than X. The most vehement arguments here are usually that there’s no such thing as a good reason not to choose X.

But I still think the key limitation of the use of the word “inertia” as a negative is that it fails to account for the lack of INTERNAL compulsion: if *I* don’t have a reason to change, if over the long haul I value institutional expertise over opportunities for new efficiencies, *I* don’t have a reason to change. No further discussion needed, no justification required.

Lord knows I’m a magpie, always looking for the next shiny thing. I’d tell anyone, “Move! Don’t worry about what’s on the other side! It has worked for me, every single time!”

And if someone replied, “I care too much about my family’s roots in this place we’ve been for generations,” they’d be right. But not right for me. But because of my INTERNAL compulsions.

So can we please please pretty please, nearing four years after Day Zero, acknowledge that sommmmmmme of the reasons people choose X miiiiiight have as much to do with their INTERNAL compulsions to use the newest thing as with X itself, and that some people have neither the INTERNAL personal nor EXTERNAL business/technology compulsion forcing them to even consider changing?

Or once more invoking The Raudonis Protocol, that they have compelling reasons to consider X AND compelling reasons to choose something else?

I’m not saying that nobody is doing this, including Jeff who I hope also doesn’t mind being used to support MY rant disagreeing with parts of his. I fully acknowledge the strength and clarity of his observations.

I am, however, very definitely saying that it’s easy to deny the INTERNAL forces — personal preferences, emotional comfort, spiritual values, philosophical inclinations, you name it — behind making or not making change. Until we bring that into the conversation and keep it there, we’re leaving out what I think is MORE than half of the dynamic that drives choices.

And we can’t have a MEANINGFUL conversation if we attribute negative values to people who choose differently for INTERNAL reasons as much as EXTERNAL ones.

I know I can do better than this for both length and anger. LOL I’m also a little embarrassed by how close this is to being on-topic. LOL I do hope I’ve been sufficiently Derpy.

[Tim Wilson]

[Oliver Peters] ” It’s my contention that the media workflow (IMHO as much or more so than FCP X) contributed to the speed and fluidity of the post process on this film.”

Perhaps, but that’s very different than the claims presented in the videos, which are riddled with factual errors and philosophical leaps that are based on facts not in evidence, but rather an “everything is awesome” enthusiasm that’s engaging, but doesn’t actually move the discussion forward at all.

Now if YOU had been making the presentation, Oliver, it would have been both more accurate and more helpful to X’s cause.

I think Aindreas’s post above is on the mark. The part that’s very 2012 isn’t the post itself, which is quite precisely rooted in actual words that are being spoken.

The 2012 aspect is that any post that questions the speaker’s grasp of facts is making a criticism of FCPX. Are we truly still in a place where enthusiasm unfettered by fact is the only acceptable response in any discussion of X? I didn’t think so, but I’m apparently mistaken.

In fact, other than disagreeing with the speaker about the speed of FCPX’s support for camera formats, Aindreas makes no observations about FCPX AT ALL. He’s calling out the speaker for enthusiasm that’s stated in ways that aren’t in evidence from the presentation, or are just plain wrong.

To summarize:

Final Cut Pro X is the first NLE designed around a data-centric ecosystem.
I agree with Aindreas. Few people who use Media Composer would agree with this. FCPX different? Yes. Better? Perhaps. First? No.

But there is no criticism of X either stated or implied in challenging the author’s claim about X being first.

• “Previous NLEs were timeline-based systems that sat on-top of a database.”

Wait a minute. Timeline, obviously true, but I thought databases were data-centric. In any case, what’s wrong with databases? Does FCPX not use databases? If not, then where is FCPX’s data-centric data contained? Is FCPX’s data-centric approach so data-y that it transcends the idea of a database altogether?

In any case, this is a value judgement by the speaker based on wobbly understanding of how data works and is stored. There’s no evidence given that databases are somehow incompatible with data-centric models.

Again, an overreach by the speaker that implies no criticism of X.

[Tim Wilson]

[Hunter Leachman] “I’m not the biggest fan of LA, there are definitely pros (really cool people occasionally), but a lot of cons (too crowded, too many jaded types, too many whackos, too many flakes/burnouts). “

For the record, I’m older (mid-50s), but have spent my life pulling up roots and going new places — 25 moves in the last 30 years. I feel like I’m slowing down, but I’ve said that before. LOL I have virtually no way to even imagine the pressures that millenials face — partly EXACTLY because MY generation f’d so much up — so Kylee is the best source for this of anyone I know in the COW, period.

However, I do have more experience making wild, cross-country moves without a net on the other side of the jump than anyone you’re likely to meet, ever. I’ve thrived on it, and admittedly might recommend it more often than is suitable to every member of my audience, but I can’t imagine life without these wild leaps.

Have you spent a lot of time in LA? I’ve admittedly not ever lived there for long, but in various jobs was going there for many weeks every year. I’ve met hundreds of editors (no kidding), been in scores of facilities, gotten to know the customers of VARs who’ve carried my products, and I just haven’t found that to be the case AT ALL. They’re mostly apex predators who have to be clear-eyed and razor sharp to stay in the game. Flakes, burnouts and whackos need not apply.

You’ll be more likely competing against highly educated and highly motivated people even younger than you, coming out of UCLA, USC, Full Sail, and a million other places that churn out ridiculously qualified, capable, and relentless sharks. Their internships will have been on gigs you’re dreaming of getting someday.

Not that you can’t be all that and still be a dick. LOL And not that your chops aren’t better and you’re pleasanter to work with. But LA is a town that welcomes outsiders, maybe more than anywhere but New York. Without new blood coming in, it ceases to exist, and they absolutely know that.

I think you’ll also find it LESS crowded than Atlanta. Not just that LA was built to be spread out by design, which it absolutely is. The sprawl in Atlanta, as well as Dallas (where I lived for way too long LOL), just feels like a bit of a mess.

But places like Hollywood are also intentionally small – small houses, small streets leading up into secluded hills. A mile off the strip you can be in another place altogether. In one direction, the winding streets are exactly like Italy, too narrow for two cars to pass each other, steep enough to make walking exhausting, wall-to-wall trees and flowers, and dead quiet, entirely residential, lots of young families. In the other, there’s actually a lot of wilderness — right in LA and Burbank, where a lot of editing jobs are. You’ll see coyotes just trotting along, and mountain lions are not uncommon within walking distance of the Dolby Theater where they hold the Oscars. There are hills everywhere, and the views of downtown LA are spectacular. It’s beautiful and invigorating. Most of the time. LOL

Don’t believe the “LA freeway” hype, either. A hell of a lot easier to drive in LA than Atlanta…although in Austin you can easily walk or bike to a lot of great jobs…but if you want flakes, weirdos and burnouts, that’s the bedrock of Austin, which I mean in the best possible way. I think Austin is one of the world’s great cities, and those people are EXACTLY the reason why. I absolutely love it. Most people would be lucky to land there…but as Kylee notes, it’s a lot of corporate and small agency stuff. You can make a happy living in a beautiful place.

But I’ve lived all over this great land of ours, and I also absolutely adore LA. Can’t beat the weather, either. So, unless you really want to walk or bike to work, I wouldn’t let lifestyle be the deciding factor. Or, to put it another way, in most ways, I’d rank LA at the top of the list for lifestyle, not the bottom.

[Hunter Leachman] “I don’t like the financial outlook of Los Angeles, compared to my home city.
“

True. LOL It just is.

But especially while you’re young and unencumbered (I assume, since you didn’t mention encumbrances), there are wonderfully weird corners that you can tuck yourself into that will later make great stories about when you were paying your dues. LOL Buildings that have been around since the 30s (ancient in LA terms, although I lived in a place built in 1611 in Boston), in interesting parts of town. It can be done.

But it ain’t like Austin, which is even more liveable than Atlanta, which is still pretty dang liveable. But if you’re young and can pull it off, I think it’s worth the risk. Worst case scenario, you fall back to TX or GA with Hollywood experience under your belt.

It’s scary out there. I have no idea how you kids are pulling this off. But since it’s scary even if you stay at home, might as well go for the big prize, right?

[Tim Wilson]

[Michael Gissing] “Marquess of Queensbury rules??”

I was going to suggest the Unified Rules of MMA, with an additional request that, if you have to bust up some furniture, leave a few dollars with Noah so he doesn’t get stuck with the bill.

I mean, hey, if furniture needs busting up, then bust it up, but not paying is just plain rude.

[Tim Wilson]

[Jeremy Garchow] “It does seem a bit excessive, but we get to see very high quality kittens and puppies!
“

An appeal which is not to be understated. I’d wager that the #1 subject filmed by Phantom cameras is kitties, certainly if YouTube is any indication.

I think in general, these kinds of workflows emerge because they can. Saying, “Hey, let’s try this. We’ll need to feel our way through but it won’t cost much more, we’ll be future proofed, and our work today will look better than anyone else” isn’t as big a mountain to climb for Too Cute as it would be for, I dunno, CSI.

It supports my belief that small projects and producers are the leaders for this. There were gazillions of weddings shot in HD before the first network HD series, and I’d bet that a lot more HD series aired on networks a lot further down the channel guide before they go to the Big 3 or 5 or whatever.

I’m also going to go way, way out on a limb and say that kitties and puppies will sell a lot more 4K TVs than, I dunno, CSI.